WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

x. The learned authorities below placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Court in the case of Agra Portfolio Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Ward 1(4), New Delhi in ITA No. 2189/De/2018 dated 16.05.2018, however, the learned authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has recently passed a judgement

RAITHARA ARECANUT MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BHADRAVATHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex Court where it was held that banking

DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA vs. GTR ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

X (PV/PE), Where, . . . . (b) the fair market value of the unquoted equity shares determined by a merchant banker or an accountant as per the Discounted Free Cash Flow method.” 10.2 After going through the above Rule we take note of the fact that the assessee had opted DCF method and got valuation report from an accountant as per the Rule

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

NAGAPURA CREDIT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the ITA No.223 to 226/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 10 Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex

M/S. NEELADRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA MANVI, ,RAICHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act and thus would not be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80P(2) of the Act. Finally, the issue reached the Hon’ble Apex Court where it was held that banking

PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NIDLE,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance of provisions of Rs.21,34,129/-, it is merely provision but not an expenditures. The provisions are not allowed as per sec.37 of the Act, therefore, he requested that order of the CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire material on record and orders of the authorities below, we note that

BEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3.1 The CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of Totgar Cooperative Sales Society Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 188 Taxmann.com 282 and decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT

M/S. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance made by the Ld.AO u/s. 80P(2)(d). 4.1 It was submitted by the Ld.AR that, the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the has been considered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s.The Jayanagar Co- operative Society Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No.3254/Bang/2018 by order dated 23.07.2019, on similar

MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

X’ amount of expenditure, the ld. AO is duty bound to examine the statement of the assessee about not incurring the expenditure or also about the quantum of expenditure, as the case may be. Such claim is required to be examined naturally having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This is so because the claim of expenditure is generally

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

X’ amount of expenditure, the ld. AO is duty bound to examine the statement of the assessee about not incurring the expenditure or also about the quantum of expenditure, as the case may be. Such claim is required to be examined naturally having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This is so because the claim of expenditure is generally

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

X’ amount of expenditure, the ld. AO is duty bound to examine the statement of the assessee about not incurring the expenditure or also about the quantum of expenditure, as the case may be. Such claim is required to be examined naturally having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This is so because the claim of expenditure is generally

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

X’ amount of expenditure, the ld. AO is duty bound to examine the statement of the assessee about not incurring the expenditure or also about the quantum of expenditure, as the case may be. Such claim is required to be examined naturally having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This is so because the claim of expenditure is generally

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

X’ amount of expenditure, the ld. AO is duty bound to examine the statement of the assessee about not incurring the expenditure or also about the quantum of expenditure, as the case may be. Such claim is required to be examined naturally having regard to the accounts of the assessee. This is so because the claim of expenditure is generally

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

X out of which Rs. 53.47 cr. was found to be ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 6 of 46 prudentially written off. The majority of bad debts written off related to urban debts mounting to Rs. 218.09 Crores and the rural debts written off was only Rs. 0.77 Crores which has been separately reduced from the claim of provision

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

X out of which Rs. 53.47 cr. was found to be ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 6 of 46 prudentially written off. The majority of bad debts written off related to urban debts mounting to Rs. 218.09 Crores and the rural debts written off was only Rs. 0.77 Crores which has been separately reduced from the claim of provision